State of
M.P & ANR Vs. Brijesh Kumar Awasthi
& Ors [1997] INSC 272 (10 March 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R Delay condoned.
leave
granted.
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties.
This
special leave petition arises from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench, made on April 11, 1996 in M.A No. 414/96. Respondent No.2, Shivshankar Shukla was
the owner of the land from khasra No. 336, Peesajhodi, Tehsil in District Betul.
The said property was acquired and an award came to be made under section 16 of
the Indian Forest Act By the Forest Superintending officer. In lieu of
compensation, the land to an extent of 4.50 acres of Khasra No. 282/1 and 292
was given to them .
That
award became final. After taking over possession thereof, the standing timbers(bamboos)
were removed. The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 4A of 1988 for a declaration
of title to the land in khasra No. 336 and for compensation of Rs.39,000/-,
After filing the written statement contesting the suit, Narendra Kumar, the
Conservator of Forest, the third respondent colluded with the respondents 1 and
2 with out any sanction of the State Government and appears to have suffered a
compromise decree in that suit, The additional District judge, Betul,
accordingly, passed a decree on May 8, 1992 setting aside the award. After one
and a half years, the respondents filed an execution application upon which the
appellants came to know of the decree for the first time. Consequently, They
filed an application under Section 47, CPC, objection to the execution on the
ground of fraud. The application was dismissed. The writ petition filed by the
appellants was dismissed by the High Court with liberty to agitate their right
in an appropriate suit. Consequently, the suit was filed for declaration and to
set aside the decree on the ground of collusion and fraud played upon the
Government.
Along
with the suit, an application under order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2, CPC came to be
filed. The application for injunction was dismissed and the appeal has also
been dismissed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
From
the above narration of the facts, it is seen that there was a valid award
passed under the provisions of the Forest Act and the award came to be set
aside on a compromise but third respondent though having no authority from the
State Government . It is the admitted position that when the first suit was
filed by them, the State was in possession of the property. On that premise,
they sought damages against the State. Under these circumstances, when the
State is agitating the right on the ground of fraud and collusion, it is
obvious that, pending suit, the appellants were entitled to an injunction
restraining the respondents from getting the fraudulent decree passed against ,
executed.
Under
these circumstances, the trial Court as well as the High court has committed
manifest error of law in not granting the injunction.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court and also of the civil
Courts stand set aside.
There
should be an interim injunction pending suit. The trial court is directed to
dispose of the suit expeditiously. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
